With higher resolutions on the same monitor, you really don't need AA. For some reason, at school running 1600x1200, I get 3 times the framerate. At school the computers have Raedon 9000s, I have a 9600XT. Crazy.

yes - that was my point too Smaller resolutions create far bigger jaggies than higher resolutions. antialiasing would be unnecessary given a high enough res. Games look better to me at 1280x960 with no antialias, than they do at 640x480 with everything cranked. There is certainly room for compromise, I agree - I just don't think it's as straightforward as your previously bias'd examples show. Even without antialiasing, if you scale that 1600x1200 down to 160x120, it will look much nicer, because you can't see enough detail for it to look bad

In some games AA/AF makes more difference than in other games and in some the FPS hit is bigger than in others. In LFS AA/AF makes a huge difference to image quality, I would go as far as to say that LFS with AA/AF switched off is unpleasant to play and strains my eyes. On top of that the FPS hit is not too bad with most GPUs so yes, I think AA/AF should be used in LFS, it will help much more than a higher resolution.

Quote from Chris_Kerry :

I just wish that information on things like this where more readily available for normal people like me. People don't understand what they can do with their systems.

I would like to know peoples opinions on what I have done and whether my system should be running this, or running better? I seem to have a hell of a lot of processes running at the moment even though they aren't taking up much CPU power.

I think putting AA/AF settings in LFS would be a good idea for the simple reason that GPU drivers' default to "let the game decide". It wouldn't matter to me personally as I use nHancer for managing game settings but it would be better for noobs. Noobs are more likely to play around with in-game graphics settings than with GPU driver settings.

The GPU driver settings will not have any effect on the number of running processes.

Quote from glyphon :

a game running at 200fps is going to have "smoother" game play than the same game running at 60fps because the user inputs are being updated into the game enviornment more often...even if you can't "see" a difference, you'll "feel" a difference.

This is not true for LFS. In LFS the physics and input detection run at fixed frequencies that are independent of the graphics frame rate. This is actually one of the major features of LFS when compared to other sims: Everybody is driving the exact same physics at all times, which is not neccessarily the case with some other sims which work as you described.

Quote from J.B. :

I think putting AA/AF settings in LFS would be a good idea for the simple reason that GPU drivers' default to "let the game decide". It wouldn't matter to me personally as I use nHancer for managing game settings but it would be better for noobs. Noobs are more likely to play around with in-game graphics settings than with GPU driver settings.



This is not true for LFS. In LFS the physics and input detection run at fixed frequencies that are independent of the graphics frame rate. This is actually one of the major features of LFS when compared to other sims: Everybody is driving the exact same physics at all times, which is not neccessarily the case with some other sims which work as you described.

I agree on the 1st part.I think it was already recomended several times.

I have to a bit disagree on the second part.While LFS physic calculation are independent of the graphic frame rate you still react on what you seen on screen.
So if the game render something at 30FPS or 80FPS might affect your performance on track.The point is that human eye usually didnt see more then 50-80FPS on screen.
And of course if you see same part of the track while driving (like 50 meters) at 30FPS or 80FPs is different as well.

Hope you got my point.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

I have to a bit disagree on the second part.While LFS physic calculation are independent of the graphic frame rate you still react on what you seen on screen.
So if the game render something at 30FPS or 80FPS might affect your performance on track.The point is that human eye usually didnt see more then 50-80FPS on screen.
And of course if you see same part of the track while driving (like 50 meters) at 30FPS or 80FPs is different as well.

Hope you got my point.

Yes, I understand what you are saying and you are right that frame rates will influence reaction times to events happening on the screen when fps is very low. While this the case though, input frequency, audio feedback, force feedback and physics engine are all still running at the correct rate. I think these four aspects are much more important than the graphics frame-rate. For example you can hear what your tyres are doing by the sliding sound effects and the physics engine will be fed with smooth inputs instead of choppy inputs even if the graphics are a bit slow.

To find out just how bad low frame rates can hurt drivability you need to do some tests with rFactor. At 30 fps you cannot possibly use the same braking points that you use at 60 fps and still make it round the corner. You also need to use more steering lock to make up for increased latency of the steering input etc.

In LFS there have been drivers who had very low-end machines and have still been able to post world records. This is also because racing is not only about reacting to things but about anticipating how the car will behave in certain situations. Getting a feel for a car means that you already know what to do to make the car go through the next corner quickly before you are actually driving through it. You may need to react with small corrections but not at a rate of 100 times per second.